• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    One time I accidentally said a kid’s name on a 2-way radio, and we were not supposed to use their names over the airwaves.

    I’m not sure if I had critics thought, it was just a mistake

    • Lvxferre
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      wtf does this even mean

      OP is asking two things:

      • the most controversial shit that you say
      • the shit that you say and think “mmh, maybe I’m wrong but I’ll keep saying it”

      …or at least that’s how I interpreted it.

      • @Semjaza
        link
        24 hours ago

        I read it as these two questions:

        1. Which controversial sentence said over public broadcast media do you disagree with the critiques of?
        2. Which controversial broadcast sentence do you come closest to agreeing with, even if you don’t think it true and hate yourself for even contemplating as true

        Don’t know if I’m right or but that reading makes most sense to me after a couple of passes and some thinking.

        • Lvxferre
          link
          fedilink
          23 hours ago

          We’re both interpreting it slightly different ways:

          • you - the utterance is specific, the speaker is unspecified
          • me - “utterance” is a placeholder for “discourse”, the speaker is whoever answers the question

          To be honest this is really cool. Now I’m curious if one of us got it right, or if we’re both reading it wrong.

        • Lvxferre
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          As you said in the other comment, the sentence is grammatically OK¹. However, it’s still a huge sentence, with a few less common words (e.g. “utterance”), split into two co-ordinated clauses, and both clauses are by themselves complex.

          To add injury there’s quite a few ways to interpret “over the airwaves” (e.g. is this just radio, or does the internet count too?)

          So people are giving up parsing the whole thing.

          I also write like this, in a convoluted way², but I kind of get why people gave up.

          1. I’m not sure if it’s semantically OK due to the word “utterance”.
          2. Except when translating stuff, since I’m forced to roughly follow the “informational layout” of the original. That’s usually a PITA but it helps wonder for clarity!
          • Call me Lenny/Leni
            link
            fedilink
            English
            243 minutes ago

            But that just means its issue is it’s verbally unfamiliar, no?

            Makes me wonder how many people read scriptures/manifestos.

            • Lvxferre
              link
              fedilink
              18 minutes ago

              [Just to be clear for everyone: I’m describing the issue, not judging anyone. I’m in no position to criticise the OP.]

              The unfamiliar vocab is just the cherry on the cake. The main issue is that it’s hard to track everything; at least, when reading it for the first time. And most people don’t bother reading an excerpt enough times to understand it.

              Makes me wonder how many people read scriptures/manifestos.

              Almost nobody, I believe. And I’d go further: I don’t think that most people read longer texts that would “train” them for this sort of stuff.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      212 hours ago

      It reads like a question simultaneously sent through google translate and a thesaurus. I’ve tried several times, but I just cannot work out what I’m being asked.

  • Lvxferre
    link
    fedilink
    112 hours ago

    My most controversial discourse* can be roughly phrased as “screw intentions”, “your intentions don’t matter”, “go pave Hell with your «intenshuns»”. It isn’t a single utterance*; I say stuff like this all the time, and regardless of the utterance used to convey said discourse, people will still disagree with it.

    The one that I’m sometimes at fault is “people who assume are pieces of shit and deserve to be treated as such”. Because sometimes it is reasonable to assume (to take something as true even if you don’t know it for sure); just nowhere as much as people do.

    *I’m being specific with terminology because it’s a big deal for me. “Discourse” is what you say, regardless of the specific words; “utterance” is a specific chain of language usage (be it voiced, gestured, written, etc.)